----- Mensagem original ----- > De: Lars Bamberger <maill...@herr-der-mails.de> > Para: blfs-supp...@linuxfromscratch.org > Cc: > Enviadas: Domingo, 24 de Julho de 2011 8:53 > Assunto: Re: paco > > Oh, I think I'm loosing track of what the problem was in the first > place. :-/ I do not think so. Again, thank you very much for this reply!
> On Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> Please, the correct order of columns for command paco -sMFCndd iptables is: >> >> [package size] [missing-size] [number of installed files] [number of > missing files] [number of shared files] [install date] >> $ paco -sMFCndd iptables >> 2.6M [ ] 134 [ ] (134) 21-Jul-2011 19:57 iptables-1.4.11 >> 2.6M [ ] 150 [ ] (150) 22-Jul-2011 18:21 iptables-1.4.11.1 >> 2.6M [ ] 150 [ ] (148) 23-Jul-2011 15:30 iptables-1.4.12 >> 2.0M [336k] 120 [6 ] (120) 21-Jul-2011 20:13 iptables-1.4.7 > > OK, so the oldest version of iptables (iptables-1.4.7) which was > installed after iptables-1.4.11 has 120 installed files, of which all > 120 are shared. So, it should be safe to do a 'paco -U iptables-1.4.7'. > As for the other versions of iptables (1.4.11 and 1.4.11.1), the same > applies: all installed files are shared. It would seem the shared files > are now also owned by iptables-1.4.12 (which is the most recent version > we want to keep.) iptables-1.4.12 is the only package that has two files > uniquely associated with it. Exactly. > Also, it would seem that the previous attempts to delete iptables (paco > -r) did exactly what they should do: all non-shared files are deleted, > but since there are still some shared files, the package remains in the > database. Yes, it did. Very, very good software. I had some problems with an LFS on a notebook I owned, and with paco, I am considering to try again with a new notebook, when LFS-6.9 is released. > So, after removing iptables-1.4.7 as described above, do a 'paco -ua' > just to be sure. I have been doing it repeatedly. > Next, move on to the next oldest version of iptables (1.4.11). If all that is > remaining are shared files, remove it from the database. Keep doing this > until you wind up with only the most recent version of iptables > (1.4.12). DONE Yesterday, after speending some hours with several package upgrades in LFS 6.5, 6.7,6.9, and for one that could be removed with "make uninstall" (alsa-lib), I generated the same problem. To make the story short, I just tried (obviously without sucess) to remove with paco, then I removed from paco database all logs, using paco -U alsa-lib, uninstalled, installed with paco, and then was able to "unpaco" and paco. After finishing the upgrades, I did the same with iptables (paco -U iptables) and now paco is clean, showing only really paco-installed software: $ paco -sMFCndd alsa-lib 3.5M [ ] 132 [ ] ( ) 24-Jul-2011 15:59 alsa-lib-1.0.24.1 $ paco -sMFCndd iptables 2.6M [ ] 150 [ ] ( ) 24-Jul-2011 21:41 iptables-1.4.12 Águas passadas (passed waters; I think, in English, it is "water under the bridge"). Perhaps, paco is a good candidate for some future BLFS releases? Thank you very much again. []s, Fernando de Oliveira Natal, RN, BRAZIL -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
